In the entire article I can only really find one real assertion: All currencies that are not currently useful as unit of account are to be deemed "Junk-currencies".
Fine. I don't know what Junk-currency means (the author doesn't elaborate), but I'll go with it, because why argue semantics. Let's continue.
From the article:
Quote
I suppose some people would argue that you could effectively set the price in U.S. dollars, and then just use bitcoin for transactions at whatever the market rate is at that time.
In this case, you would just be using bitcoin as a payment device, while actually doing business on a dollar basis.
In this case, you would just be using bitcoin as a payment device, while actually doing business on a dollar basis.
The author clearly understands about separating currency from payment system. He is confused (upset?) about the undisputed fact that a lot of people are talking about bitcoin. He must either think they are prematurely exited about using it as a new unit of account, or be insinuating bitcoin offers no advantages over mass adoption of the Turkish banking system.
Let's make it real clear for him.
- Bitcoin has plenty of advantages over the Turkish banking system.
- People are not interested in a new unit of account for the foreseeable future.
- They are exited about bitcoin: The payment mechanism that never sleeps.
- They are exited about borderless tranactions.
- They are exited about ending the Visa/Mastercard duopoly.
- They are exited about getting a 3% discount off everything they buy remotely.
- They are exited about ending Inflation...forever.
- They are exited about ending the threat of capital controls, globally.
- They are exited about renewed financial privacy.
- They are exited about a new long-term store of value, one you don't have to bury in the garden.
- They are exited about one day closing their bank account, for good.
I hope that clears up the confusion.
It's good to spell it out once in a while.
